The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-10-24
CASES OF THE ANARCHISTS
Belief at Washington that the Appeal
Will Be Denied by the Supreme Court.
Chicago People Apprehensive that the Execu-
ton of the Seven Condemned Men May.
Cause a Serious Outbreak in That City.
Washington Special.

w
The prevailing opinion here is that the An
archists' case will be thrown out Of court. The
Chief-justice intimated very plainly that the
court would consider only one point, and that
was the constitutionalty OF the law under which
they were convicted. He interrupted General
Pryor to say that the points ne was presenting
should be determined by the courts of Illinois,
as the federal Judiciary had nothing to do with
them. General Pryor continued his argument
in the Same line before until he was inter
rupted again by the Chief justice. who
marked very significantly: 1.-THE only question
here is whether the statute referred to is valid
statute or not If the court erred in it's admin
istration. that Is question for the State"
The counsel are divided in opinion. Mr..
Tucker and General Butler differ from Pryor
and Black to the form of appeal. Mr.. Tucker
relies wholly upon the provision OF the four
teenth amendment to the Cons titution that NO
State shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunties OF citizens
of the United States: nor shall any State de-
prive any person of life. liberty or property
without due process of law. nor deny to any
person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws" In the opin-
ion of Mr. Tucker this provision
many important respects by the State laws and
judicial practices under which the Anarchists
were coEdemned His hrst claim is that the
words "due process of law" involve trial by
jury, a right which counsel claim has been de-
MED the Anarchists inasmuch the jury
composed of men prejudiced against the defend
ants, convinced in advance of their guilt, and
determined upon conviction. This is based
upon the fact that more than one juror was &C
cepted who declared that he had been convinced
of the guilt of the defendants and had expressed
the opinion that they should be hanged. but
that he would be bound by the evidence. Such
juror it is claimed, was incapable of rendering
an impartial verdict, and trial by such jurors
was in fact, no trial by jury at all.
After the peremptory challenges of the de-
Tense were exhausted all Jurors impaneled were
legally disqualified and cannot be recognized as
jurors within the meaning of law. When the
panel was exhausted it is claimed that law was
further violated by the instruction of the court
that additional Jurors be summoned from "the
best citizens Of Cook county," and the consequent
summoning of bankers and merchants. A trial
by their peers was thus denied the Anarchists.
Another point raised Is that the record shows
that an exception was at one time noted to a
ruling of the court being in violation of the
State and federal constitutions. This excep-
tion being recognized by the court. it is claimed
that this fact alone gives jurisdiction to the
United States Supreme Court.
The great point at issue, in Mr.. fuckers opin-
ion, is a definition asked for the first time from
the United States Supreme Court of the words
''due process Of law" and their relation to the
'liberty of the citizen" and the claim for the
first time made that the United States Supreme
Court must take cognizance of appeal based
upon the admission to a jury of improper jurors
Other points upon which the Chicago attor-
neys for the Anarchists have placed more or less
reliance are: That the forcible search of the ed
itorial rooms of the Arbeiter Zetung vio-
laton of the constitutional guaranty against
unreasonable searches. seizures: etc; that the
fifth amendment to the Constitution was vio-
lated, inasmuch as Spies was called upon to tes-
tify against HIMSELF that the proceedings and
sentences in violation of the provisions
that the accused shall be informed of the nature
and cause of the accusation, and that crue. and
unusual puuishments shall not be Inflicted; that
a conspiracy to incite violence may have been
pr owed, but that penalties adjudged for a
conspiracy violence, which was not
proved; that the Anarchists protected by the
constitutional provision against interference
with religious belief, etc; that the Anarchists
had an undeniable right to hold the Haymarket
meeting under the guaranty of freedom of the
press, fire edom of speech. and the right to assem-
BILE peaceably.
When Mr.. Tucker came into the case he de-
INJURED from all points based upon the first ten
amendments to the Constitution, claiming that
these ply restrictions of federal power
and not applicable to State laws. Upon several
of the other points the attorneys are unanimous
ly agreed.